SMF Systems Technology Corporation, B-292419.3, November 26, 2003

B-292419.3 Nov 26, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights To cancel request for quotations for services under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and to issue an order for services on a noncompetitive basis because the initial competition allegedly was contrary to regulations governing FSS acquisitions and inconsistent with an urgent need to conduct the procurement with minimum delay was not reasonable where the competition conducted was not contrary to applicable regulations and the urgency was primarily the result of the agency's missteps in the acquisition process. The VA advised SMF that its quotation was not selected. SMF was advised that its quotation. Which was selected. Was not considered because SMF had not included required resumes. The VA advised our Office that the contracting officer had reviewed the procurement and determined that since a General Services Administration (GSA) schedule contract was the source [of the RFQ]. View Decision SMF Systems Technology Corporation, B-292419.3, November 26, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys Decision SMF Systems Technology Corporation (SMF) protests the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to cancel request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ15198 for video teleconferencing support services for the Air Force Surgeon General (AFSG) and to acquire these services on a noncompetitive basis. /1/ We sustain the protest. On May 21, 2003, the VA issued the RFQ to three FSS contractors, including SMF and Electronic Data Systems, Inc. (EDS). SMF timely submitted its quotation prior to the May 28 closing time. On June 5, the VA advised SMF that its quotation was not selected. At its debriefing, SMF was advised that its quotation, even though significantly less expensive than the EDS quotation, which was selected, was not considered because SMF had not included required resumes. On June 10, SMF protested that the VA had simply overlooked the resumes, and that the VA should take corrective action and consider SMF's quotation. Protest, June 10, 2003. On June 24, the VA advised that it would reevaluate the quotations because SMF's resumes had been "inadvertently overlooked." E-Mail from VA to Protester's Counsel, June 24, 2003. On the next day, SMF agreed to withdraw its protest and, on June 26, our Office closed our file without further action. The agency conducted a reevaluation and, on July 10, again selected the EDS quotation for the order. On July 16, SMF received a debriefing and on July 17, SMF filed a second protest, asserting that the VA had misevaluated quotations and had made an unreasonable cost/technical tradeoff. On August 18, 2003, the VA advised our Office that the contracting officer had reviewed the procurement and determined that since a General Services Administration (GSA) schedule contract was the source [of the RFQ], she had used procedures for conducting this procurement that were contrary to the . . . Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.402 and inconsistent with the urgent need to conduct this procurement with minimum delay. Letter from VA to GAO (Aug. 18, 2003). The VA reported that "[s]ince the need for this contract to be established and functional is critical to the success of AFSG's operations worldwide, the slow process of the current solicitation through FAR Part 15-type procedures is contrary to the interests of the agency." Id. The VA stated that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Sec. 208.404-70, entitled "Additional ordering procedures for services," applied to this FSS order. This provision implements Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107) and applies to orders placed by non-Department of Defense (DOD) agencies on behalf of DOD. As relevant here, this provision states that: (b) Each order for services exceeding $100,000 shall be placed on a competitive basis in accordance with paragraph (c) of this subsection, unless the contracting officer waives this requirement on the basis of a written determination that-- . (1) One of the circumstances described at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) through (iii) applies to the order; or . (2) A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source. . (c) An order for services exceeding $100,000 is placed on a competitive basis only if the contracting officer provides a fair notice of the intent to make the purchase, including a description of the work the contractor shall perform and the basis upon which the contracting officer will make the selection, to-- . (1) As many schedule contractors as practicable, consistent with market research appropriate to the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that offers will be received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the work requirements, and the contracting officer-- . (i)(A) Receives offers from at least three contractors that can fulfill the work requirements; or .